Magnesium sulphate has been demonstrated to be an effective neuroprotectant for babies delivered prematurely (under 37 weeks’ gestational age). Antenatal administration reduces infant mortality and cerebral palsy (CP); however, uptake in the UK has been significantly lower than other countries. A quality improvement (QI) project (PReventing Cerebral palsy in Pre Term labour (PReCePT)) was carried out in the West of England, UK, to raise awareness of evidence and to improve the uptake of magnesium sulphate as neuroprotectant in preterm deliveries. Five National Health Service (NHS) Trusts and the West of England Academic Health Science Network participated in the QI project. The project was underpinned by a multifaceted QI approach that included: patient and clinical coproduction of resources; recruitment of clinical champions to support the local microsystems and create a stimulating/supporting environment for change; Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles; training for over 600 NHS staff and awareness raising and strategic influencing of key leaders. A baseline audit and regular measurement of the number of eligible women receiving magnesium sulphate was undertaken at each hospital site, and the overall programme was evaluated using data from an international benchmarking organisation for neonatal care outcomes—the Vermont Oxford Network. During the project 664 staff received magnesium sulphate training. The use of magnesium sulphate increased across the West of England from an average baseline of 21% over the 2 years preceding the project to 88% by the conclusion of the project. The project was also able to influence the development of a national data collection process for benchmarking the use of magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection in preterm deliveries in the U.K. PReCePT appears to have had a favourable effect on the uptake of magnesium sulphate across the West of England. The project has also provided learning about how to stimulate adoption and spread of evidence using a QI approach across a network.

BackgroundProgressive ventricular dilatation after intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) in preterm infants has a very high risk of severe disability and death. Drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy (DRIFT), in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reduced severe cognitive impairment at 2 years.ObjectiveTo assess if the cognitive advantage of DRIFT seen at 2 years persisted until school age.ParticipantsThe RCT conducted in four centres recruited 77 preterm infants with IVH and progressive ventricular enlargement over specified measurements. Follow-up was at 10 years of age.InterventionIntraventricular injection of a fibrinolytic followed by continuous lavage, until the drainage was clear, and standard care consisting of control of expansion by lumbar punctures and if expansion persisted via a ventricular access device.Primary outcomeCognitive quotient (CQ), derived from the British Ability Scales and Bayley III Scales, and survival without severe cognitive disability.ResultsOf the 77 children randomised, 12 died, 2 could not be traced, 10 did not respond and 1 declined at 10-year follow-up. 28 in the DRIFT group and 24 in the standard treatment group were assessed by examiners blinded to the intervention. The mean CQ score was 69.3 (SD=30.1) in the DRIFT group and 53.7 (SD=35.7) in the standard treatment group (unadjusted p=0.1; adjusted p=0.01, after adjustment for the prespecified variables sex, birth weight and IVH grade). Survival without severe cognitive disability was 66% in the DRIFT group and 35% in the standard treatment group (unadjusted p=0.019; adjusted p=0.003).ConclusionDRIFT is the first intervention for posthaemorrhagic ventricular dilatation to objectively demonstrate sustained cognitive improvement.Trial registration numberISRCTN80286058.

Background The drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy (DRIFT) trial, conducted in 2003–6, showed a reduced rate of death or severe disability at 2 years in the DRIFT compared with the standard treatment group, among preterm infants with intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation. Objectives To compare cognitive function, visual and sensorimotor ability, emotional well-being, use of specialist health/rehabilitative and educational services, neuroimaging, and economic costs and benefits at school age. Design Ten-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Setting Neonatal intensive care units (Bristol, Katowice, Glasgow and Bergen). Participants Fifty-two of the original 77 infants randomised. Interventions DRIFT or standard therapy (cerebrospinal fluid tapping). Main outcome measures Primary – cognitive disability. Secondary – vision; sensorimotor disability; emotional/behavioural function; education; neurosurgical sequelae on magnetic resonance imaging; preference-based measures of health-related quality of life; costs of neonatal treatment and of subsequent health care in childhood; health and social care costs and impact on family at age 10 years; and a decision analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DRIFT compared with standard treatment up to the age of 18 years. Results By 10 years of age, 12 children had died and 13 were either lost to follow-up or had declined to participate. A total of 52 children were assessed at 10 years of age (DRIFT, n = 28; standard treatment, n = 24). Imbalances in gender and birthweight favoured the standard treatment group. The unadjusted mean cognitive quotient (CQ) score was 69.3 points [standard deviation (SD) 30.1 points] in the DRIFT group compared with 53.7 points (SD 35.7 points) in the standard treatment group, a difference of 15.7 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.9 to 34.2 points; p = 0.096. After adjusting for the prespecified covariates (gender, birthweight and grade of IVH), this evidence strengthened: children who received DRIFT had a CQ advantage of 23.5 points (p = 0.009). The binary outcome, alive without severe cognitive disability, gave strong evidence that DRIFT improved cognition [unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 11.0; p = 0.026) and adjusted OR 10.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 46.7; p = 0.004)]; the number needed to treat was three. No significant differences were found in any secondary outcomes. There was weak evidence that DRIFT reduced special school attendance (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.05; p = 0.059). The neonatal stay (unadjusted mean difference £6556, 95% CI –£11,161 to £24,273) and subsequent hospital care (£3413, 95% CI –£12,408 to £19,234) costs were higher in the DRIFT arm, but the wide CIs included zero. The decision analysis model indicated that DRIFT has the potential to be cost-effective at 18 years of age. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (£15,621 per quality-adjusted life-year) was below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to adjustment for birthweight and gender. Limitations The main limitations are the sample size of the trial and that important characteristics were unbalanced at baseline and at the 10-year follow-up. Although the analyses conducted here were prespecified in the analysis plan, they had not been prespecified in the original trial registration. Conclusions DRIFT improves cognitive function when taking into account birthweight, grade of IVH and gender. DRIFT is probably effective and, given the reduction in the need for special education, has the potential to be cost-effective as well. A future UK multicentre trial is required to assess efficacy and safety of DRIFT when delivered across multiple sites. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80286058. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The DRIFT trial and 2-year follow-up was funded by Cerebra and the James and Grace Anderson Trust.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. INTRODUCTIONSurvival rates for preterm babies are increasing, 1 however severe neurological impairment remains a significant consequence of preterm birth.2 3 Research continues into potential treatments for reducing both the risk of initial brain injury and subsequent neurodevelopmental problems; 4 however, in the interim, these can be reduced by optimising currently approved and recommended practices.